www.ijecs.in
International Journal Of Engineering And Computer Science ISSN:2319-7242
Volume 2. Issue 11 Nov.2013 Page No. 3346-3351
Performance Analysis of ANODR and ZRP protocol
against Wormhole attack in Wireless Sensor Network
Er. Gurjot Singh
Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Engineering College,
Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, India
Abstract: Wireless sensor network consist of spatial distributed sensor nodes deployed in a hostile and dense environment to gather
information and propagate it to the base station for further processing. In the insecure wireless transmission medium, the enemies can
analysis the data traffic against intercept-able routing information embedded in routing data packets. Allowing adversaries to trace network
routing information and other critical information at the end of those routes may pose a serious threat to covert operations. Wireless sensor
network has limited resources like bounded storage space, energy and computation power. In this paper, to prevent the network from
wormhole attack, the ANODR, an anonymous on-demand routing protocol is implemented. The wormhole attack is one of the severe attack
on WSN that can effect the networks performance. In this, attackers create a low-latency link between two points in the network. The
wormhole attack tunnels the packets from one end to another end by modifying or altering its content. For route anonymity problem, the
ANODR prevents strong adversaries from tracing a packet flow back to its originator and for location privacy problem, ANODR ensures
that adversaries cannot discover the real identities of authenticated transmitters. The architecture of ANODR is based on technique named
"broadcast with trapdoor information". The qualnet 4.5.1 simulator is opted to analyze the performance of ANODR on the basis of metrics
like frame tunneled, frame dropped and intercepted.
Keywords- Wormhole attack, WSN, ANODR, ZRP
1. Introduction to WSNs
When Wireless sensor network are composed of a large set of
homogeneous nodes with extreme resource constraints. Each
sensor node has wireless communication capability plus some
level of intelligence for signal processing and data networking.
These nodes are usually scattered over the area to be monitored
to collect data, process it, and forward it to a central node for
further processing. Military sensor networks might detect and
gather information about enemy movements of people and
equipment, or other phenomena of interest such as the presence
of chemical, biological, nuclear, radiological, explosive
materials. WSNs can support a myriad of uses including
military, commercial, environmental, and medical applications.
Natural environments such as remote ecosystems, disaster sites,
endangered species, agriculture conditions, and forest fires can
also be monitored with sensor networks[1].
Sensor networks are small, low-cost, low-power devices
with the following functionality: they communicate over short
distances, sense environmental data, and perform limited data
processing. A typical node might have only 4MHz of
processing power, 4KB of RAM, and a short transmission
distance of less than 100 feet. Tiny OS is a small, open-source
operating system developed to support most WSN applications.
Wireless sensor networks often contain one or more sinks that
provide centralized control. A sink typically serves as the
access point for the user or as a gateway to another network.
The sensor nodes communicate using RF, so broadcast is the
fundamental communication primitive[2]. Security is one of the
most difficult problems facing these networks. For certain
applications of sensor networks, like military applications,
security
becomes
very
important.
First,
wireless
communication is difficult to protect since it is realized over a
broadcast
medium.
In
a
broadcast
medium,
adversaries/attackers can easily intercept, inject, and alter
transmitted data or information. Second, sensor networks are
deployed in a variety of insecure environments so the
adversaries can easily steal nodes, recover their cryptographic
material and behave as authorized nodes in the network. Third,
the sensor networks are vulnerable to resource consumption
attacks. Attackers can repeatedly send data packets to drain a
node battery and waste network bandwidth. In these security
sensitive deployments, secure transmission of sensitive
information over the sensor network is essential. The use of
encryption and authentication algorithms are primitives
between two sensor devices and it requires an initial link key
establishment process, which must satisfy the low power and
low complexity requirements[3, 4].
1.1. Threats to wireless sensor network
In order to appreciate the challenge of securing a WSN
against attack, it is necessary to consider the possible threats to
its security. There are a large and increasing number of threats
and attacks to which WSNs are susceptible. They can be
broadly classified as attacks against the privacy of the network
data, denial of service (DOS) attacks, impersonation or
replication attacks and physical attacks.[5] In addition to the
types of attack, it is also worth considering that attacks can be
launched at any point in the network. The wormhole attack can
be described as follow:
1.1.1. Wormhole Attack
Er.Gurjot Singh, IJECS Volume 2 Issue 11November,. 2013, Page No.3346-3351
Page 3346
Wormhole attack is one of the severe Denial-of-Service attack
on the network layer, that can affect the data routing, data
aggregation and localization dependent wireless security. [6]
The wormhole attack may be launched by a single or a pair of
nodes. In two ended wormhole, one end overhears the data
packets and forwards them through the tunnel to the other end/
destination, where the packets are replayed to local area or
network. For tunneled distances longer than the normal
wireless transmission range of a single hop, it is easy for the
attacker/ adversaries to make the tunneled packet arrive with
better metric than a normal multihop route. In case when they
only forward all the data packets without altering the content in
them, they boost up the transmission in the network than the
normal one. In majority of the cases, it either drops or
selectively forwards the data packets leads to the network
disruption. The wormhole attack does not require MAC
protocol information and also it is immune to cryptographic
techniques. [7] This makes it very difficult to detect. A number
of approaches have been proposed for handling wormhole
attack. Some techniques simply detect the presence of
wormhole in the network, while other approaches also focus on
avoiding or preventing the wormhole attack. Mostly techniques
require additional hardware support, time synchronization and
localization information or may be confined to specific routing
algorithm. Wormhole attack are simple to deploy but it may
cause significant damage to network [8].

Wormhole using out-of-band channel
In this, two-end wormhole, a dedicated out-of-band high
bandwidth channel is placed in between end points to create a
wormhole link [10].

Wormhole using packet encapsulation
Each packet is routed through the legtimate path only, when
received by wormhole end, gets encapsulated to prevent nodes
on the way from incrementing hop counts. The packet is
brought into original form bt the second end point.
 Wormhole using high power transmission
This kind of wormhole approach has only one malicious node
with much high transmission capability that attracts the packets
to follow path passing through it.
 Wormhole using Packet Relay
In this, only one malicious node is needed that replays packets
between two far nodes and this way fake neighbors of the
original nodes are created.
 Wormhole using Protocol Deviation
The adversary node formed the wormhole by forwarding data
packets without backing off unlike a legitimate node can done
thus, increases the possibility of wormhole path getting selected
[10].
2. Secure Routing Protocol
Wireless networks are different from other contemporary
communication and wireless ad hoc networks routing is a very
challenging task in WSNs. For the deployed constrained sensor
nodes it is impractical to build a global scheme for them.
Mostly the applications of sensor networks have the
requirement of transmitting the sensed data from multiple
points to a common destination called sink. Resource
management is required in sensor nodes regarding transmission
power, storage, on-board energy and processing capacity. For
Security aspect in mind, a secure routing protocol (ANODR) is
used for routing in WSN. For Security purposes, a secure
routing protocol (ANODR) is used for routing in WSN [9].
1. ANODR (Anonymous on-demand Routing (ANODR)
Protocol): It is designed to provide a net-centric anonymous
and untraceable routing scheme for wireless ad-hoc network.
Anonymous On-demand Routing Protocol is designed to
provide an anonymous and untraceable routing scheme for
wireless ad-hoc networks. It is based on table-driven AODV
routing protocol. As in other routing protocols network routes
are open to all i.e. packets sent in wireless manner then any
adversaries can trace the network route and infer the pattern of
the packets that are being communicate between
communicating parties. This may pose a severe threat to
network and challenging constraint for routing and data
forwarding. The ANODR protocol allows you to protect the
wireless communication from being traced and without
removing your device`s battery. The adversaries should not
trace the data packets that are sent by ANODR secure routing
protocol. It provides untraceable path for data communication
[11]. ANODR provides the following security services:
1. Negligibility- based on anti-tracing such that signal
interceptors cannot trace signal transmitters mobility pattern
via wireless signal tracing (with non-negligible probability
defined on the victim network‟s size).
2. Confidentiality and anonymity- The path follows by the
packets should not be traced by any adversaries.
3. Traffic flow confidentiality- Conceals the message content
through encryption.
4. Identity-free routing- The identity cannot be stole by other.
5. One-time packet contents such that any two wireless
transmissions are indistinguishable with each other in regard to
a cryptanalyst.
The ANODR configuration is based on AODV parameter
settings. ANODR parameters use the same terminology as
AODV's parameters, except the name is changed from AODV
to ANODR. These services are provided at the Network Layer
and Link Layer to protect the IP and link layer protocols [9].
3. Related Work
Dr.G.Padmavathi, Dr.P.Subashini and Ms.D.Devi Aruna [16]
had proposed protocol ANODR- ECC with Telnet provide
application layer security and it ensures route anonymity and
location privacy
and is robust against eavesdropping
attack.For route anonymity, it prevents strong adversaries from
tracing a packet flow back to its source or destination; for
location privacy, it ensures that adversaries cannot discover
the real identities of local transmitters. The simulation is done
using network simulator qualnet 5.0 for different number of
mobile nodes. The proposed model has exposed improved
results in terms of Average throughput, Average end to end
delay, Average packet delivery ratio and Average
jitter.
Hyeon Myeong Choi, Su Man Nam, Tae Ho Cho [17] had
proposed a secure routing method for detecting false report
injections and wormhole attacks in wireless sensor networks.
The proposed method uses ACK messages for detecting
wormholes and is based on a statistical en-route filtering (SEF)
scheme for detecting false reports. Simulation results show
Er.Gurjot Singh, IJECS Volume 2 Issue 11November,. 2013, Page No.3346-3351
Page 3347
that the proposed method reduces energy consumption by up to
20% and provide greater network security.
Annie Jesus, Suganthi Rani.A and R.Mathan [18] had
presented a protocol named USOR. It is an Unobservable
Secure On-demand Routing protocol for mobile ad hoc
network that achieves unlinkability and unobservability by
employing anonymous key establishment based on group
signature. There is no security provision against the wormhole
and black hole attacks in existing USOR protocol. AODV,
USOR and modified USOR are implemented on ns2, and there
performance is evaluated.
Varsha Sahni, Vivek Thapar and Bindiya Jain [19] had
evaluated the affects of wormhole attack on performance of
AODV and DSR routing protocols on varying node mobility.
WSN‟s protocol has different security flaws and using these
flaws many kind of attack possible on wireless sensor -network.
Wormhole is one of these attacks. Wormhole attack causes
serious affect on performance of the WSN protocol and
preventing the attack has proven to be very difficult. This paper
illustrates how wormhole attack affects performance of routing
protocol in wireless sensor network using random waypoint
mobility model with varying node mobility. They also analyze
the effectiveness of WEP and CCMP security protocol against
wormhole using DSR and AODV protocol.
Syed Basha Shaik and S. P. Setty [20] had analyzed the
performance of AODV, DSR and ANODR in Grid placement
model is evaluated for different network sizes, using
QualNet5.0.2 simulator. The significance of network size for
the performance of AODV, DSR and ANODR protocols is
studied. From results they can conclude that at less network
sizes all the protocols in Grid placement give encouraging
results. DSR is giving higher throughput and packet delivery
ratio for all network sizes when ANODR giving less average
jitter and end-to-end delay.
Terrain Size
Simulation Time
Radio/Physical Layer
No. of Nodes
Secure Routing Protocol
Attack
Traffic Type
Routing Protocol
Energy Model
Mobility Model
Device type
1500*1500
200sec
802.15.4
50
ANODR
Wormhole
attack
(Threshold
CBR
ZRP
Micaz
Random Waypoint
PAN coordinator, ffd
and rfd
1. Simulation Scenario
The nodes are placed randomly on terrain of size 1500*
1500m. There are total 20 nodes placed on terrain. One
wireless cloud is placed on the terrain has configured to
802.15.4. All the nodes are link wirelessly with the wireless
subnet cloud except the two nodes named 7 and 13 as shown in
figure 1. The nodes 7 and 13 are link to other wireless subnet
cloud have configure to wormhole attack. The nodes are made
mobile nodes that move randomly on the terrain. CBR is used
as data traffic application with multiple source and destination.
Then secure protocol ANODR is configured on all the nodes
and simulation is run for 200 seconds i.e. the simulation time.
The working of simulation is shown in figure 2.
4. Simulation Setup
To evaluate the performance of ANODR in wireless sensor
network the QualNet 4.5.1 Network Simulator tool is used. In
the simulation scenario, the nodes are deployed randomly in a
terrain of size of 1500*1500m. CBR is used as data traffic
application with multiple source and destination. To configure
the application and for mobility of nodes profile configuration,
application configuration objects are included in scenario. It
consists of basic network entities as sensor nodes (mobile) and
PAN coordinator. The PAN coordinator used is fully
functioned and other remaining nodes are reduced function
devices having limited constraints like storage, energy and
power. The wormhole attack is implemented on random
number of node in network. The security schemes ANODR is
implemented on sensor network against wormhole attack. The
performance is measured on the basis of metrics like frame
dropped, frame tunneled and intercepted. The simulation time
is 200 second. For simulation the different parameters are set
are shown in table 1:
Figure 1. Simulation Scenario setup
Table 1. Simulation parameters setup for QualNet simulator
Er.Gurjot Singh, IJECS Volume 2 Issue 11November,. 2013, Page No.3346-3351
Page 3348
1. Frame Dropped-
Figure 2. Working of Simulation Scenario
2. Performance metrics
The following performance metrics are considered in analyzing
the performance evaluations of routing protocols.
1. Frames intercepted all- Number of frames intercepted by
the wormhole node.
Figure 3. Frame dropped by wormhole
2. Frame Intercept-
2. Frames dropped by wormhole- Number of frames
dropped by the wormhole link (since the frames are classified
as data packets, for example, with packet size greater than a
threshold).
3. Frames tunneled- Number of frames tunneled by the
wormhole node. (Frames intercepted multiple times due to
repetitive replay will not be tunneled.)
5. Result and Discussion
This section evaluates the performance of ANODR protocol
against wormhole attack in wireless sensor network. After
describing our implementation and simulation setup, it has been
evaluate how ANODR defends the wormhole attack in WSNs.
The performance is evaluates on the basis of metrics like frame
tunneled, frame dropped and intercepted.
A. ZRP Routing Protocol- Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) [12]
combines the benefits of pro-active discovery inside node's
limited neighborhood (Intra Zone Routing Protocol (IARP))
[13], and also uses a reactive protocol for interaction among
neighborhoods. The Broadcast Resolution Protocol (BRP) is
used to forward route request. ZRP partitions the complete
network in many zones. This protocol is classified as a flat
protocol due to overlapping of zones. As a result network
congestion can be reduced and optimal routes can be detected.
[14, 15].
Figure 4. Frame intercept all
3. Frame tunneled by wormhole attack
Er.Gurjot Singh, IJECS Volume 2 Issue 11November,. 2013, Page No.3346-3351
Page 3349
Figure 7. Frame intercept all in ANODR protocol
Figure 5. Frame tunneled by wormhole
The above figures 3, 4 and 5 shows the performance
of ZRP routing protocol under wormhole attack. The values of
frame dropped, frame tunneled and intercept by wormhole
attack under ZRP protocol is 1933 at node number 7 and 1265
at node number 13.
3. Frame Tunneled-
B. ANODR protocol- It is designed to provide a net-centric
anonymous and untraceable routing scheme for wireless ad-hoc
network. It is based on table-driven AODV routing protocol.
1. Frame Dropped-
Figure 8. Frame tunneled by wormhole in ANODR protocol
Figure 6. Frame dropped by wormhole in ANDOR protocol
2. Frame Intercept-
The above figures 6, 7 and 8 shows the performance of
ANODR secure routing protocol under wormhole attack. The
values of frame dropped, frame tunneled and intercept by
wormhole attack under ZRP protocol is 56 at node number 7
and 34 at node number 13. The table 1 shows the total number
of frame that are effected by wormhole attack.
Table 2- Total frame drop, tunnel and intercept by wormhole attack in ZRP
and ANODR protocols
Er.Gurjot Singh, IJECS Volume 2 Issue 11November,. 2013, Page No.3346-3351
Page 3350
Total
ZRP routing
Frame intercept
tunneled
protocol
dropped ANODR
Total secure
Frame routing
intercept
tunneled
droppedprotocol
by
by
by wormhole- 3198
wormhole- 90
6. Conclusion
In this paper, the performance of ANODR secure routing
protocol is analyzed with comparison to other routing protocol
i.e. ZRP. The implementation and simulation of wormhole
attack on routing protocols in wireless sensor network is done
and evaluated the effect on the data packets being sent in
network using qualnet simulator. Parameter like frame
dropped, tunnel and intercepted are analyzed. The results show
that the presence of wormhole attack affects the data packets
being sent by the routing protocol in the wireless sensor
network. Finally, it‟s observed that, ZRP routing protocol is
less effective as compared to ANODR secure routing protocol
as all the parameters are positive in ANODR routing protocol
than in ZRP routing protocol. Frame intercepted by wormhole
attack is more in ZRP routing protocol as compare to ANODR
secure protocol as shown in figure. So ANODR routing
protocol is better against wormhole attack in wireless sensor
network than ZRP routing protocol. The ZRP routing protocol
is hybrid protocol, the combination of reactive and proactive
routing protocols and the ANODR configuration is based on
AODV routing protocol. It is designed to provide a net-centric
anonymous and untraceable routing scheme for wireless sensor
network. The ANODR protocol allows you to protect the
wireless communication from being traced and without
removing your device's battery.
References
[1] I. F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, and E. Cayirci,
“Wireless sensor networks: A survey”, Computer Networks Journal,
Elsevier Science, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp 393– 422, March 2002.
[2] J. M. Kahn, R. H. Katz, and K.S. Pistcr, Mobile Networking for
Smart Dust, ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile
Computing (MobiCom „99), Seattle, WA, 1999, 217 – 278.
[3] J. Staddon, D. Balfanz, and G. Durfee. “Efficient tracing of failed
nodes in sensor networks”, Proc. of the first ACM International
workshop on Wireless sensor networks and applications (WSNA),
ACM Press, 2002, 122-130.
[4] Ritu Sharma, Yogesh Chaba, Yudhvir Singh, “Analysis of
Security Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network”, Int. J. Advanced
Networking and Applications Volume: 02, Issue: 03, Pages: 707-713
(2010)
[5] David Boyle, Thomas Newe,” Securing Wireless Sensor
Networks: Security
Architectures”, JOURNAL OF NETWORKS, VOL. 3, NO. 1,
JANUARY 2008, pp. 65- 77.
[6] Devesh Jinwala, “Ubiquitous Computing:Wireless Sensor
Network Deployment, Models, Security, Threats and Challenges”,in
National conference NCIIRP-2006,SRMIST, pp.1-8,April 2006.
[7] Rouba El Kaissi, Ayman Kayssi, Ali Chehab and Zaher
Dawy,“DAWWSEN:A Defense Mechanism against Wormhole
Attacks In Wireless Sensor Networks”, in The Second International
Conference
on Innovations In Information Technology, pp. 1-10,
2005.
[8] Er. Gurjot Singh, Er. Gurpreet Kaur, “Analyzing the Impact of
Wormhole Attack on Routing Protocol in Wireless Sensor Network
on Behalf of packet tunnel, dropped and intercepted”, International
Journal of Engineering Development and Research, Vol.1 No.1, PP.
42- 48, 2013.
[9] Gurjot Singh and Sandeep Kaur Dhanda, “Performance Analysis
of Security Schemes in Wireless Sensor Network”, International
Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication
Engineering, Vol. 2, Issue. 8, pp. 3217- 3223, 2013.
[10] Gurpreet Kaur and Sandeep Kaur Dhanda, “Analyzing the effect
of wormhole attack on routing protocols in Wireless Sensor
Network”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer
and Communication Engineering, Vol. 2, Issue. 8, pp. 3217- 3223,
2013.
[11] Jiejun Kong, Xiaoyan Hong, “ANODR: Anonymous On Demand
Routing with Untraceable Routes for Mobile Adhoc Networks”,
ACM, 2004.
[12]Haas, Z.J., Pearlman, M.R. and Samar, P., "Intrazone Routing
Protocol (IARP)," IETF Internet Draft, draft-ietfmanet-iarp- 02.txt,
July 2002.
[13] Zygmunt J. Haas Marc R.Pearlman and Prince Samar, “The Zone
Routing Protocol for Adhoc Networks”, draft-ietf- manet-zone-zrp04.txt, July 2002.
14] Haas, Zygmunt J., Pearlman, Marc R.: The Performance of Query
Control Schemes for the Zone Routing Protocol, August 2001,
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Vol.9, No. 4.
[15] I. Sumaiya Thaseen, K. Santhi, “ Performance Analysis of FSR,
LAR and ZRP Routing Protocols in MANET”, International Journal
of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887) Volume 41– No.4, March
2012.
[16] Dr.G.Padmavathi, Dr.P.Subashini and Ms.D.Devi Aruna,
“ANODR-ECC Key Management protocol with TELNET to
secure Application and Network layer for Mobile Adhoc
Networks”, International Journal of Distributed and Parallel
Systems (IJDPS) Vol.3, No.1, January 2012.
[17] Hyeon Myeong Choi, Su Man Nam, Tae Ho Cho, “A
Secure Routing Method for Detecting False Reports and
Wormhole Attacks in Wireless Sensor Networks”, Wireless
Sensor Network, 2013, 5, 33-40.
[18] Annie Jesus, Suganthi Rani.A and R.Mathan, “ An
Unobservable Secure Routing Protocol against Wormhole and
Black hole Attacks in MANET”, International Journal of
Advanced Research in Computer Engineering & Technology
(IJARCET) Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2013.
[19] Varsha Sahni, Vivek Thapar and Bindiya Jain, “Security
Implications of Ad-hoc Routing Protocols against Wormhole
Attack using Random Waypoint Mobility Model in Wireless
Sensor Network”, International Journal of Computer Science
and Information Security, Vol. 9, No. 11, November 2011.
[20] Syed Basha Shaik and S. P. Setty, “Performance
Comparison of AODV, DSR and ANODR for Grid Placement
Model”, International Journal of Computer Applications (0975
– 8887) Volume 11– No.12, December 2010.
Er.Gurjot Singh, IJECS Volume 2 Issue 11November,. 2013, Page No.3346-3351
Page 3351